This is part of what I don't get. We were putting people on the moon every 6 months from 1969 to 1972. Now it's described as some huge undertaking, requiring all this money and R&D. I'm not saying it's not a huge undertaking. It's sitting a crew on top of a controlled explosion, hurling them into the void and then steering them across 239,000 miles to the moon. It's a big deal, no doubt. But like I said, we were doing it every 6 months for 3 years with 40-year-old technology and materials. So what's the trouble now? Is it simply funding priorities?

We do things now that were impossible 100 years ago. You seem to think that we have discovered all about physics that there is to discover and that what was the case yesterday will be the case tomorrow. Science and history have shown both of those views to be incorrect. I think our aspirations should look beyond our current capabilities. After all, it was once thought that ships heavier than water could not float and craft heavier than air could not fly.

I do agree with your assessment of our leaving this planet, however. I think that given enough time we could manage to do it. But we don't have that time, in my estimation. The problems we must overcome on this planet to forge a sustainable civilization need to be addressed now. We won't have 1000 years to wait, or even 100. In fact I believe that we must produce that stable, sustainable, and peaceful society before we can reach for the stars. We won't be able to put forth such a concerted effort until we are no longer competing and fighting with each other. So saying we must find a new planet because this one will be all fucked up is foolish. We must take care of this one (which is fully within our power, we just have to re-prioritize) because it's the only one we'll have for the foreseeable future.

Calm down. The post was in response to Daemonik sarcastically saying that he's "so glad" that voat.co will continue to be a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Voat.com seems to be more into free speech than reddit.com. That's fine; both are private sites, as you point out, and can make their own editorial decisions. I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with private vs. government censorship.

I am glad too, because that's actually what free speech is all about. Unpopular or offensive speech is the speech that requires the most protection. Otherwise the thought police will be trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this.

His parent's health insurance, I would imagine.

I will indeed laugh at the absurdity of a SWAT team being involved over chemistry experiments. Because it is absurd. Since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have been scared of our own shadows. We act like frightened children, lashing out at the slightest indication of the possibility of a threat (and yet ironically not noticing or responding to actual threats). It is alternately amusing and infuriating to me.

I'll tell you the same thing I told Lumpy. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is be a superstar. Superstars are, by definition, a small percentage of the population. We cannot all do this. The vast majority cannot do this. Therefore it isn't really valuable advice. A goal to shoot for, absolutely. But if the key to success is to be in the top 10%, it leaves out the other 90% by definition.

All of this makes you an outlier by definition. You don't seem to understand that. Can we all be in the top 10%? I don't think so.

This is what always gets me about this type of example. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is have a rare skill set in a field that has few people in it. Well that's great, but it is something that only a relative few people can do. If more people did it, the field would have more people in it, the skill set would be more common, and you wouldn't be getting calls every day.

Thank God. In America anyone who can avoid crashing into things during their test can get a license. It's stupid easy, with the emphasis on stupid.

Fuck that. I would have to be desperate for a job to take one that is over 1.5 hours away. I know some people are indeed desperate for a job, but otherwise I would not waste so much of my day. Hell, I pay for a monthly parking spot in the city just to cut my commute from an hour and 15 to 30 minutes.

This is America; success is measured in dollars. Bernie Madoff was a success, until he turned himself in to the authorities. Modern Americans would step over Jesus and tell him to get a job.

The PTB have also put this idea into the larger culture as a way to justify their disproportionate wealth.

"Why waste so many years learning how to code? Why not just pay someone else to build your idea?"

Yeah, I mean why learn a skill yourself when you can just hire someone to do the work for you and then hire someone else to market the product to make you millions, while paying the guys you hired as little as possible? It seems the most important skill is being able to pay people while keeping most of the money for yourself.

I am not too arrogant to realize I have awesome genes. In fact, I'm pretty awesome in general, and rather smart too! How's that for not being arrogant?